of 1689, and we have a lot of ground to cover today, so we're going to jump right in. We're in paragraph 8 of chapter 1, and I'll read paragraph 8 for us now. It says, the Old Testament in Hebrew, which was the native language of the people of God of old, and the New Testament in Greek, which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations, being immediately inspired by God and by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages. are therefore authentic. So as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto and interest in the scriptures and are commanded in the fear of God to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner and through patience and comfort of the scriptures may have hope. So basically I want to quickly go over what this paragraph is teaching and then to spend the rest of our time engaging with a change in the understanding that most modern Reformed and Evangelical Christians have from what the confession here is saying. This confession makes the claim that the scriptures have been kept pure in all ages by God's singular care and providence. So first, let me restate the main points taught in this paragraph. The focus of this section is on the nature of the original language scriptures and their relationship to translations and the necessity of translation for the edification of believers. There are four main points to be considered. The first point is the identification of the authentic Old and New Testaments, which are said to be in the original languages in which they were received. Our confession acknowledges the fact that the Old Testament was written in the native language of the Old Testament people of God, which was Hebrew, and the New Testament was written in Greek because it was the lingua franca or the common language of the Roman Empire to which Christianity first came. Now the second point is that the writers of our confession assert a practical, univocal relationship between the immediately inspired originals, or the autographs, and the faithful received copies, or the apographa, which they possessed in their day, which was the commonly received Hebrew Masoretic text and the Greek Textus Receptus. The mechanism by which they assert that their copies were as authentic and pure as the originals was by way of God preserving them in all ages through his singular care in providence. That's the mechanism by which we have the scriptures today. God's singular care in providence. The third point is that when it comes to religious controversies, the final authority is the original language scriptures instead of translations. This is necessary because the original languages are the source of translations and were immediately inspired so therefore have the final authority as to what scripture says. And the fourth point of paragraph eight is the necessity of translation into the common languages of the people of God. This is because God commands Christians to read and search the scriptures and not all the people of God know these original languages. Therefore, translation into the common languages is necessary for Christians to worship God acceptably and from scripture in their own tongue have hope in God. That's why there's been such efforts in Christianity to translate the scriptures into all the languages of the world. So let's spend a moment talking a little bit more about the relationship between the original language text of Holy Scripture and translations. When God inspired the prophets and apostles with his word, He didn't speak to men in some heavenly language that could not be understood. The purpose of language is to communicate, and God's communication is perfectly clear. He spoke to them in a language that they understood. To the Old Testament people of God, this was Hebrew. We talked about verbal plenary inspiration about a month ago, and the words that were inspired by God were in the languages that the scriptures were written. Worse we said Hebrew for the Old Testament with a few small portions being in Aramaic and then Greek for the New Testament. These original language scriptures are said to be immediately inspired in our confession, immediately inspired. That is every word in these original tongues is breathed out by God and as such every word bears his divine authority. There's an importance placed on all the words of God. The question we may ask is, how can I know what God has said if I cannot read the original languages? How can I know? Of course, the answer to this question is translation. This is how we know. But is a translation inspired by God? Does it bear his divine authority? May we call a translation the word of God? Now, the answer to these questions is yes. but with qualification. Yes, but with qualification. The original language scriptures are immediately inspired, as our confession says, whereas translations are what we would call immediately inspired. That is, the inspired words of the originals are mediated through another language to communicate the word of God. So a translation is inspired, authoritative, and is the word of God to the degree that it faithfully communicates the immediately inspired originals. Through faithful translation, God's word bears the authority of the original, though it be in another language. This is important. Now the writers of our confession, though, realize that there are limitations when translating from one language to another. Sometimes precision and nuance can be lost in translation. So instead of making a translation such as the Latin Vulgate, the standard to sort out controversies in the church as the Catholic Church did, the immediately inspired original language scriptures are to be appealed to, and this is the position of our confession. We don't have as our final authority any translation, only the originals. This idea that the divine originals were the standard was understood by the 16th century scholar by the name of Desiderius Erasmus, In fact, his work on the Greek New Testament and bringing it to print helped solidify the Reformation on solid footing. Because remember, the Reformation was based off of the principle of sola scriptura. He realized that the standard Latin Vulgate of the Western Church in his day had mistakes in translation. In fact, some of those mistakes led to mistakes in doctrine. And as a Renaissance scholar, he set out to correct the Latin New Testament using the Greek manuscripts. His extensive work in publishing the Greek New Testament in print for the first time was actually for the purpose of correcting the Vulgate. So Erasmus' work on the Greek New Testament was for the purpose of correcting the Latin Vulgate. In fact, his Novum Testamentum Omni was a diglot. That is, it included both the Greek New Testament and the Latin in one volume to show that his Latin translation was justified by the Greek. Isn't that interesting? And this is the principle that we see in our confession, that it is the original language scriptures that are immediately inspired and are the final arbiter in religious disputes, but that translations are necessary for the sanctification of all of God's people because it gives them access into the scriptures in their own languages. Now let's turn the corner and think more about the particular doctrine of preservation of scripture in all ages, as our confession puts it, and challenges to this doctrine in modern times. There have been challenges to this doctrine, severe challenges to this doctrine in modern times. First I want us to think about something not relating directly to the text of scripture, but rather to its interpretation. Why did Christians begin to interpret the first chapter of Genesis according to the theory of evolution. Archibald Alexander Hodge and Benjamin Breckenridge Warfield, two leading Princetonian theologians in the mid and late 19th century, were among many reformed Christians who began compromising with evolution and believed some form of theistic evolution, or at least were open to the possibility of theistic evolution. Even Charles Hodge, the father of A. A. Hodge, compromised the literal day in Genesis 1 to possibly meaning ages. But why is this? Why did they compromise? They didn't come to those conclusions from scripture. They were in fact adjusting the interpretation of scripture to what seemed to them to be established science. Scriptural truth was eroded at the foundational level and this, among other compromises, led to a downgrade and an apostasy that came to fruition as liberals later destroyed their seminary and denomination. This is a fact. Princeton went liberal soon after B.B. Warfield. The PCUSA went liberal at the same time. Thankfully, many conservatives have recovered a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and the interpretation of day in our day, but the damage nevertheless throughout this last century, century and a half has been massive to compromise just on that doctrine of creation, special creation in six days. I bring this up because at the same time Christians were compromising with evolution, they were also compromising with higher criticism. Higher criticism as a principle rejects the supernatural origin of the biblical text, seeking to look behind the text to reconstruct the history and background of the biblical world using what they see as a rational or a scientific approach, higher criticism. They don't believe that the Bible is inspired and therefore they seek for information about the background and the history of the Bible from other sources. They seek to find the historical Jesus because they don't believe the one that is revealed in scripture. This is key. But in the same way that A. A. Hodge and Warfield did not accept full-blown atheistic Darwinian evolution but were open to the milder form, theistic evolution perhaps, many Reformed Christians, especially Warfield, accepted and taught the milder cousin of higher criticism, what is known as lower criticism or modern textual criticism. Now, we tend to think that higher criticism and lower criticism as two disconnected disciplines, the higher criticism being the domain of skeptics and liberals and lower criticism being the unbiased science of finding out what the original text of scripture said. Nothing could be further from the truth. Listen to what Harry Bower had to say about the interwoven connection between higher and lower criticism. In view of the history of higher and lower criticism, in the past 100 years, there is a profound irony in the relationship in which these two disciplines are regarded in the church. Whereas higher criticism has a bad name in large parts of the church, lower criticism has an eminently favorable name. Both kinds of criticism are governed by methods that have an identical, basic, rational, scientific approach to their specific task. The two forms of criticism are so interrelated and basic in the study of the Bible that it is impossible to use the one properly without acknowledging the legitimacy and necessity of the other. Higher and lower criticism are linked. Of course, if you look at the history of both of these disciplines, This isn't at all surprising, because in the 18th century, Johann Semmler, often called the father of German rationalism, was influential in developing this field of higher criticism. And his prized student, Johann Griesbach, being encouraged by his teacher Semmler, developed principles of lower criticism, which are still in use today. Lying at the foundation of higher criticism is a rejection of the divine supernatural origin of scripture. And at the foundation of lower criticism is a rejection of God's providential preservation of the text of scripture. We need to recognize the danger in these two disciplines. Just as evolution played a role in undermining scripture in the gospel of Christ, both higher and lower criticism do the same. If we think that the principles of correcting errors in manuscripts of the books of the New Testament that were used by Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza, from which we get the traditional text, the traditional Greek New Testament, are the same as those that were administered by Westcott, Hort, and a long list of later scholars, including Aland and Metzger, who gave us the modern critical text, we are sadly mistaken. It's the same kind of difference that we might see in how evolutionary geologists look at the Grand Canyon and see it formed by millions of years of erosion and creationists who look at the same canyon and see the effects of a global flood and the canyon testifying to the scriptural accounts of our origins. The outcome of their study is critically influenced by their respective presuppositions. They don't approach the subject from the same place. In fact, modern textual criticism as a rule presupposes that the traditional text has been corrupted, not by heretics, but by orthodox Christian scribes. They call it the expansion of piety and see many texts that support the doctrine of the Trinity or the deity of Christ having been tampered with by the Orthodox to support and uphold Orthodox doctrine. And so using the principles of Griesbach, which they view as an unbiased science, modern textual critics divorce themselves from a Christian worldview and do their criticism as if God doesn't even exist. And he hasn't, they do their textual criticism as if he hasn't preserved his word. As I quoted a previous lesson from Tommy Wasserman who said this, in any case, for me, now this is an evangelical, quote, evangelical text critic. And he's one of the better ones. In any case, for me, a high view of scripture is a matter of personal belief. I have no intention of trying to prove that this or that textual variant is the original word of God. What is he doing? I would like to work as a text critic as if God didn't exist, so to speak. I think most Christians are under the mistaken notion that modern textual critics are evangelical Christians who are working from a perspective of belief in God and the infallibility of scripture. Wasserman is a case in point. He claims to be evangelical, but when he puts on his text critic hat, he ceases to operate on Christian principles by his own admission. The academic text critic guild is like the science guild in public universities. You don't get access to positions of influence unless you hold the dogma of evolution. Creationists don't get access to tenure almost as a rule. The same is true for text critics. Unless you hold to their atheistic principles, you will not be accepted in the guild. And so it perpetuates its atheistic principles. It's not surprising that some of the men who sit on the editorial committee of the Nesloland Novum Testamentum Graecae are, in fact, non-Christians. David Trobisch is one committee member who fits that bill. James Snapp wrote this concerning David Trubisch. One might expect all of the compilers of the Novum Testamentum Graecae to be Christians. Well, wouldn't you assume that the people that are doing text criticism on the Bible would be Christians? Since future compilations of this text will likely be the basis for future translations of the New Testament, used in Christian congregations, and this is true. However, Trobisch is a fellow of the Jesus Project, an undertaking of a group called the Center for Inquiry. His fellow members include Frank Zindler, an atheist who is also a Jesus mythicist. That is, he denies that Jesus ever existed. Paul Kurtz, president of the International Academy of Humanism, James Crossley, an atheist, James Tabor, Perhaps best known for his theory that the Talpiot tomb is the tomb of Jesus, Robert M. Price, Jesus Seminar member and also a Jesus mythicist, and Richard Carrier, another Jesus mythicist. At the website of the Center for Inquiry, the organization is defined, quote, a worldwide movement of humanists, skeptics, freethinkers, and atheists. And its member's mission is plainly stated to foster a secular society based on science, reason, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values. The website also states that it is a priority of the Center for Inquiry to oppose and supplant the mythological narratives of the past, I wonder what those might be, and the dogmas of the present. Now you might be shocked by this, but this is nothing new. As far back as similar in Griesbach in the 18th century to Westcott and Horton in the 19th century, these are the type of men who have sat in judgment over the text of the word of God. And these are the ones who have produced the accepted form of the Greek New Testament from which nearly all modern Bibles are translated. Think about that. Why have we allowed skeptics and atheists and heretics to be in charge of our Greek New Testament. I think it's clear why this is important. Satan's oldest scheme is to cast doubt and to deny the word of God. Remember the Garden of Eden? Yea, hath God said, ye shall not eat. of the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden. Modern textual criticism has cast doubt upon hundreds of passages in the Bible. Unfortunately, most Reformed and evangelical scholars and pastors subscribe to these very principles. This is an indictment on us, guys. I have heard sermons by godly men, men that we would all know, where they come to John 7, 53 to 8, 11. That's the story of the woman taken in adultery. Or to Mark 16, 9 through 20. Those are the last 12 verses of the book of Mark. And based upon these conclusions of lower criticism, tell their congregants that it is not part of scripture and they will not preach on them. This is unsettling to the faith of God's precious people. The reason I'm even talking about this is because this is a danger to our faith. I know that I'm stepping on toes. Many of our current trusted Bible teachers and expositors will tell us that we should not build our doctrine on disputed texts of scripture. The problem with this is manifold. There are many doctrines in which the chief proof texts are disputed by modern textual critics. Proof texts in our own confession of faith. One problem with this is that any text may become disputed at any time. The discovery of one supposedly ancient manuscript accounts for the rejection of the last 12 verses of Mark. Which verses occur in all the copies of Mark which number over 1,000 except in three suspect manuscripts. So they cast doubt by the finding of Codex Sinaiticus upon the last 12 verses of Mark and modern text critics reject it as scripture. John 3.16 could just as easily become a subject of their skepticism. Now should we apply this logic To the canon of scripture, the same logic that we apply to the text of scripture, would we say that because some have rejected or cast doubt on the book of James or second Peter or Jude? That we shouldn't use them for doctrine. No. We use them for what they are, the very word of God. Many people dispute. have disputed, 2 Peter, Jude, James, 2 and 3 John. Should we not use them for doctrine? The second problem with this idea of not using disputed text for doctrine is that this presumes that we don't have certainty as what are the actual parameters of the word of God. And this is in fact a denial of the promises of God and scripture. that though the grass withers and the flower of the field fades away, the words of our God will stand forever. It also contradicts the clear teaching of our confession in this paragraph that the original language scriptures are, quote, by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic. So as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them. We are to appeal to them, all of them. But what is our recourse? If we can't trust the modern textual critics and what they have produced, how do we even know that we have a trustworthy Bible? This forces us to go back to Christian principles, believing principles, faith in the singular care and providence of God. We go back to the traditional Protestant text of scripture. It is settled. It will not change. We receive it as it is, the infallible word of God. John Owen reminded his generation, some of whom were shaken by the publication of Brian Walton's Biblia Sacra Polyglotta, which Prolegomena included thousands of variant readings, Owen said this, let it be remembered that the vulgar copy that is the copy that they had, the Textus Receptus, the Hebrew Masoretic Text, that the vulgar copy that we use was the public possession of many generations. That upon the invention of printing, it was in actual authority throughout the world and with them that used and understood that language as far as anything appears to the contrary. Let that then pass for the standard which is confessedly it's right and due, and we shall, God assisting, quickly see how little reason there is to pretend such varieties of readings as we are now surprised with all. This is from John Owen, from Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek text. Now John Owen was not unaware of these variant readings in the biblical manuscripts, but he was aware of God's providential dealing with his word. Ed would not bend to the temptation to reintroduce all of the various readings that by and by had been rejected by the believing church. He saw that tendency as tending towards an atheistic presupposition. He said again, it can then with no color of probability be asserted, which yet I find some learned men too free in granting, namely, that there hath the same fate attended the scripture in its transcription as hath done other books. Let me say without offense, this imagination asserted on deliberation seems to me to border on atheism. That is the idea that scripture was transmitted just like any other book. That it wasn't God's singular care and providence that brought them to our hands. Borders on atheism. Surely the promise of God, he says, for the preservation of his word, with his love and care of his church, of whose faith and obedience that word of his is the only rule, requires other thoughts at our hands. John Owen foresaw something I think that many of us today don't see. That the downgrade of Holy Scripture has led to in fact, atheism. One must think of Bart Ehrman at the University of North Carolina. He has demolished the faith of many young people who have gotten into his classroom with these very principles of modern text criticism. Bart Ehrman was the prized pupil of Bruce Metzger, a person that most Reformed Christians respect, but his principles weren't any different than Metzger's. They're the same principles. In fact, the textbook for many seminaries in this country is from Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman that Reformed and evangelical seminaries use to teach the ministers of the gospel. And this is why we have a problem today. It's because of how we're being taught. I want to say in conclusion that we need to rethink our doctrine of Scripture if our current methodology cannot give certainty to the very words, all of the words of Scripture. And modern text criticism does not claim to be able to give us the entire text of Scripture. Inerrancy is meaningless. We claim to be inerrantists. We believe in inerrancy. It's meaningless if it only applies to the original autographs to which we have no access. What is inerrancy if we have no access to those documents? What we have, according to them, is not inerrant. So then we're not inerrantist then, we just claim it. We need a doctrine like John Owens, like our confession of faith, that believes in the special care and providence of God and preserving it completely to our day. I know I've said some things that are at odds with some in here, but I would suggest or challenge our church to search these things out. Why do we prefer the modern critical text? Why do we prefer translations based upon it? I'm willing to be corrected if I'm wrong, and I'll change my views if I'm shown to be wrong. But if I'm correct, we need to adjust our practice and theology to the view that's espoused in our confession. Jesus said, heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. If you're out there, come on in for a prayer. We're going to start in just a second. They have a multitude of reasons, but the main reason is that they do not exist in the two manuscripts that they claim are the greatest, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.